US Representative District 1: Suzan DelBene
US Representative District 2: Rick Larsen
US Representative District 3: Carolyn Long
US Representative District 4: Christine Brown
US Representative District 5: Lisa Brown
US Representative District 6: Derek Kilmer
US Representative District 7: PramilaJayapal
US Representative District 8: Kim Schrier
US Representative District 9: Adam Smith
US Representative District 10: Denny Heck

Washington State Legislature
Recommendation: Vote Democratic!(My specific recommendations only listed for seats where two Democrats are
competing against each other.)
Legislative District 30 State Senator Claire Wilson
Legislative District 32 State Senator: Maralyn ChaseLegislative District 34 State Senator: Shannon Braddock.
See notes.
Legislative District 48 State Senator: Patty Kuderer
Legislative District 48 Position 2: Amy Walen (Cindi
Bright also pretty good)

Seattle Municipal Court – all
positions have just one judge, running unopposed.

Linda’s Explanations

Initiative Measure
1631: Reduce Pollution/addCarbon Tax: YESWhat it would do: I-1631 would charge a fee to
companies that produce lots of carbon emissions.The fee would be based on their use of fossil
fuels (coal, oil and gas).The money collected
would be used for three things:1. Air
quality and energy saving programs; 2. Water quality and forest health
projects; and 3. Projects to help communities that are hurt by pollution. A few
businesses in WA will not have to pay the fee. One is already being shut down;
others produce pollution from burning wood, which doesn’t add carbon to the
atmosphere, and others are “trade dependent” aluminum or steel plants.
People who want you to vote YES say:1. Initiative 1631 is a common sense plan to make big companies pay when
they pollute.
2. 1631 will create new jobs and help Washington change to a clean energy economy.
3. Many different groups came together to write Initiative 1631, including
businesses, environmental groups, health groups, Indian Tribes, groups
representing people of color, and government. They believe that Initiative 1631
would be good for Washington, and good for the environment.
4.Oil companies have given $25 million
to advertise against Initiative 1631.Their advertisements are misleading (not true).We must not let theoil companies fool us. Oil companies think that they can “buy” the
election.
5.British Columbia has had a Carbon Fee
since 2007. It has worked very well to reduce carbon emissions.
Who says vote YES: Health groups (American Lung Association, American
College of Physicians, Virginia Mason, American Academy of Pediatrics, WA
Association of Family Physicians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and 20
other groups); Unions (SEIU and 12 others); Affiliated Tribes of Northwest
Indians and 8 individual Tribes or Nations; other Communities of Color (El
Centro de la Raza, Asian Pacific Islander Coalition, NAACP Spokane, and 23
other groups); Low-income Advocates (Poverty Action Network, Solid Ground, 6
more); Faith Groups (Church Council of Greater Seattle and 20 other groups); Clean
Energy and Environmental groups (Audobon Society,
Greenpeace, Natural Resource Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, the
Mountaineers, WA Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and 80 more groups); other businesses
(REI, solar contractors, restaurants, over 185 individual businesses); WA State
Democrats and many local Democratic groups; Governor Inslee; many politicians
and newspapers.
https://yeson1631.org/

People who want you to vote NO say:1.
Reducing carbon emissions is a good idea, but Measure 1631 would increase
energy costs for families and businesses.
2. Measure 1631 is unfair to businesses in Washington.It will make them pay more for energy, so they
will have to charge more for their products than businesses in other
states.Our businesses will not be competitive.
Some businesses might move away to avoid paying the fee.
3. It is not fair that several big businesses will not have to pay the Carbon Tax.
4.Carbon emissions are already going
down.We don’t need a Carbon fee to
lower it more.
5. A Carbon fee won’t work to reduce emissions. The companies can just choose
to pay the fee and keep polluting, instead of reducing carbon emissions.

Who says vote NO: Western States
Petroleum Association; Association of Washington Businesses; Seattle Times. I am sure there are more, but I couldn’t find any
lists of people or organizations endorsing the NO campaign.
Phillips Petroleum is the largest contributor to the NO campaign, having given
over $7 million.
http://noto1631.com/

Initiative Measure
1634: No tax on soda pop: NO
History:It is illegal in Washington to
charge sales tax on food from grocery stores, but it is allowed to charge sales
tax on candy and soda pop, because those are not really “food.” Research shows
that drinking soda pop leads to many health problems, such as overweight, heart
disease, diabetes, and cavities.Seattle
made the decision to charge extra sales tax on soda pop to try to encourage
people to drink water and other healthy drinks instead of sugary pop. The tax
money collected is used for health programs for poor people.The soda industry is very upset about losing
business.They have given $20 million
(and spent $16 million so far) on initiative 1634. They want to prevent any
other city or town in Washington from adding sales tax to soda pop.

What it would do: If Initiative 1634
passes, cities, towns and counties in Washington could not add any new tax on carbonated
“sugary beverages” (soda pop like Coke, Pepsi, etc.) or on any other type of
raw or processed “item for consumption.”

People who want you to vote YES say:1. Taxes are too high!We must block
any tax increase.
2. Taxes in Washington are already “regressive.”Sales taxes are already too high, and are especially
bad for poor people.
3. The government should not try to influence what people eat and drink.
Drinking soda pop is an individual decision.
4. Initiative 1634 will help keep
groceries affordable.

Who says vote YES:Coca-Cola Company, Pepsi Company, Keurig-Dr.
Pepper Company, Red Bull (these 4 companies together
have donated $20 million for this campaign). WA Food and Beverage Association,
Farm Bureau.Also Teamsters Unions that
represent people who work for soda companies.

People who want you to vote NO say:1.Drinking sugary soft drinks is
linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, cavities, cancer, and
obesity.
2.The commercials saying vote yes are lying.They say that it is about taxes on
groceries.It is already illegal to
charge sales tax on grocery food (since 1977).
3.Charging sales tax on pop helps people
drink less.In Seattle, sales of soda
pop had gone down since Seattle started charging extra tax on soda pop.
4.Local towns and cities should have
the right to decide what extra taxes are good for their area. This initiative
would take away local power.
Who says vote NO: American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, WA
Federation of State Employees, almost all newspapers in Washington (including
the Seattle Times, Tacoma News-Tribune, Tri-City Herald, The Olympian, The
Stranger), Progressive Voters Guide, Children’s Alliance, El Centro de La Raza,
WA Healthy Kids Coaltion.Back to Top

Initiative Measure 1639: Stricter rules for buying assault
rifles
What it would do: Impose some extra rules for buying semi-automatic assault
rifles (these are the guns that look like machine guns and can shoot many, many
bullets in 1 minute). The rules are: extra background check; 10 day waiting
period; raise age for purchase to 21, take gun safety training before (within 5
years) of purchase. All laws that apply to pistols (handguns) would also apply
to semi-automatic rifles. There are also two new rules that apply to all guns
and gun owners: raise fines for not storing guns safely (or using a trigger
lock) if a child or criminal gets the gun; and add $25 fee to the price of each
gun sold, to be used for mental health services and to pay for the police
background checks.
People who want you to vote YES say:1. Initiative 1639 adds very basic, common sense safety rules.
2. Currently, the laws for assault rifles are the same as for hunting
rifles.(The laws for handguns are more strict.)The
laws for assault rifles need to be at least as strict as the laws for handguns!3. Every year, children die because guns kept in homes are not stored
safely. Also, 80% of school shootings happened using guns that the shooters
found at home or at a friend’s home. Guns should have trigger locks or be kept
in a gun safe.
4. A waiting period will help prevent someone from buying an assault rifle
last-minute because they are angry.
Who says vote YES: Alliance for Gun Responsibility, Attorney General Bob
Ferguson, Greater Seattle Business Association, Church Council of Greater Seattle,
Faith Action Network, League of Women Voters, American Academy of Pediatrics,
Washington Education Association (teachers), WA State Public Health
Association, Planned Parenthood, PTAs
and School Boards, Seattle Times,Congressman
Adam Smith, many state legislators and local mayors, King County Sheriff, most
Democratic groups state-wide.

People who want you to vote NO say:1. If guns are locked up, they cannot be used to defend our families.
2. It is already illegal to sell handguns to people age 18, 19, and 20.It is not fair to also block them from buying
assault rifles. 1639 takes away their constitutional rights. (Linda’s
note:I did not make this up. It is the
second argument on the website Vote No on 1639.)
3. Limiting assault rifles will not reduce crime, because most criminals use
handguns, not rifles.
4. It is not fair to make gun sellers spend the time to collect information
about gun buyers, and to have to wait 10 days before giving the assault rifle
to the buyer.
5. It is not right to collect information about gun buyers and research their
background.It violates (breaks) their
privacy.
Who says vote NO: NRA (National Rifle Association); Second Amendment
Foundation, The (Walla Walla) Union Bulletin newspaper
(although they say they don’t disagree with most of it, but they think it is
better to write laws in the Legislature, not by initiative), the Spokesman
Review (Spokane newspaper).

Back to TopInitiative Measure 940: Training for police: YES
History: Working as a police officer is hard, dangerous work.In Washington, police officers spend many
hours learning how to use guns and clubs and tasers.Most police officers receive very little
training about non-violent ways to solve problems. Most police officers have
not learned about mental illness – which can make a person behave in an odd
way. Right now, a police officer cannot be convicted of killing someone except
if the prosecutor can prove “malice.”That
is almost never possible, so police officers are almost never charged with a
crime for killing someone, even if the person who died was not doing anything dangerous.
What it would do: 1. Create a “good faith” test to determine when use of deadly force was
justified.
2. Require the state board that plans police training to include training about
different cultures, disabilities, biases, and mental illness. Police would also
receive “de-escalation” training – they would learn how to calm down everyone
in a scary situation.
3. Change the law so that a police officer could be charged with a crime for
killing someone without a good reason.
4. Require that police officers give first aid when needed (until the paramedics
arrive).

People who want you to vote YES say:1.Washington state has the 4th
highest rate of police shootings in the U.S.
Good faith tests are used in 27 other states to determine if deadly force was
needed.
2. Sometimes a police officer shoots when the person is not dangerous. If the
officers had better training, they would have other ways to react, and maybe not
feel like they need to shoot and kill.
3. Police officers need to know that they can be charged with a crime if they
kill someone who is not a serious threat.
4. About 1/3rd of the people who are killed by police each year in
Washington show signs of mental illness. Others have disabilities. Police need
training to recognize mental illness and disability (so they don’t shoot people
just for behaving differently).
Who says vote YES: Mitzi Johanknecht, King County
Sheriff; Senator Patty Murray and many other politicians, including 8 Seattle
City Council members; many Native American tribes and nations in Washington; many
organizations representing people of color; many labor unions; ACLU; League of
Women Voters; many other organizations.
https://www.deescalatewa.org/
People who want you to vote NO say: 1. Police work is very hard and scary.We must trust police to use their best judgment.
2. If Measure 940 fails, a better compromise bill that has already been
discussed could be passed by the Legislature instead.
3.Measure 940 will not make our
communities safer.It will just make
police officers afraid to do their jobs.
4.We need more money to treat drug
addiction, solve homelessness, and improve mental health services.That will help reduce crime much more than
punishing police officers.

Who says vote NO: Spokesman Review
(Spokane Newspaper); King County Police Officers Guild; Seattle Police Officers
Guild; Washington State Patrol Officers Association.
(There may be others, but they were not listed on the website.)https://coalitionforasaferwashington.com/

Legislative
District 34 State Senator: Shannon Braddock
I ran out of time to research and write more!What I can say is that Shannon Braddock has lots of experience, is known
to work very hard and get things done.She
has earned a lot of respect from people who work with her, and has been very
effective in her role with the County Council.We’d be lucky to have her representing us in Olympia.I voted for Joe Nguyen in the primary.I wanted to finally have a person of color
representing the 34th district!But after learning more about him and seeing the debate between Nguyen
and Braddock, I am convinced that Braddock will do a better job representing
the district.

Proposition #1: Families, Education, Preschool &
Promise LevyHistory and what it would do: In
Seattle, we have passed a Families and Education Levy every 7 years since
1990.The levy collects money by
increasing property taxes.The 2011 levy
is expiring soon. That levy helped pay for family support services in the
schools, tutoring, and for after-school and summer daycare programs for
students.It is common for this type of
Levy to come up for a new vote to be “extended.” The new Levy is usually just a
little more expensive that the original Levy.But Proposition 1 is almost double the cost of the 2011 Levy.The total is about $638 million.It would increase property taxes by about
$125 per family, per year.

This year, the Mayor decided to combine a preschool program and college
scholarships with the Levy.The total
price of the preschool part of the Levy is $342 million over 7 years.By 2026, the preschool would enroll 2,500
students. That means the cost would be about $20,000 per preschool student, per
year. (The actual “tuition” is about $12,000 per student – the rest of the
money is for training parents and teachers and setting up and supervising the
preschools.)Preschool is 54% of the
total cost of the Levy.
The money for family support and before and after school care for students would
only be 29% of the levy. 6% of the Levy money would be for scholarships for low
and middle income high school graduates to get free tuition to community
college for 2 years.The other 11% of
the levy is to add health clinics to 4 more high schools in Seattle.

Proposition 1 says that the Mayor and City Council can decide each year how to
spend the money, and pick which programs will be funded.

People who want you to vote YES say:1. Proposition 1 will help make
education more equal for low income students by providing preschool and college
scholarships for some students.
2. Proposition 1 will benefit low income families right away.(Some of) Their children will be able to attend
preschool for free, and can go to 2 years of college and pay no tuition.
3. Preschool helps children be ready for kindergarten.It is important that low-income children
attend preschool, too. It makes sense to use most of the Levy money on
preschool, so that all students start kindergarten ready to learn.Otherwise, most poor students start school
already “behind” compared to children from families with more money.
4. Spending money on preschool means more students succeed in school and so we
spend less money on jails and drug treatment and programs for dropouts. [Linda’s
note: the evidence for this is weak. Studies of Headstart
(federal preschool program for low income children) show that the benefits fade
out by 3rd grade.After that,
the students do the same in school as low income students who did not attend Headstart.]
5. Students who use health clinics in their schools have better attendance
rates.
6. Family support programs, after school childcare and tutoring are all very
important.
7.Only 30% of high school graduates in
Seattle get a college degree.
8. If Prop 1 does not pass, the students who will suffer are mostly low income
children and minority children.

People who want you to vote NO say:1. This Levy may REDUCE the amount of money going to services for low-income
students in Seattle Public Schools compared to the levy that is expiring.
2. Levies raise property taxes, which means that housing becomes more
expensive.It is already very expensive
to live in Seattle.We should not raise
property taxes higher.Higher housing
costs leads to more homelessness.
3. The school district needs to pass two other Levies in February – one for
buildings, and one for operations.Many
voters will not be able to afford all 3 levies, and the two levies in February
are more important than this one.
4. Preschool and college scholarships are good things, but are not as important
as in-school family supports, after school childcare, and tutoring.
5. The money raised by this levy could be used by charter schools, instead of
by Seattle Public Schools.
6. This is a VERY expensive way to provide preschool for a small group of
children. (Many of those same children would qualify for Headstart
preschool anyway.It is not clear how
many new children would get preschool from the levy.) Over half of the levy is
for preschool. Most of the levy money would not help Seattle Public Schools students
or schools.
7.It would be better to wait a few
months and then ask voters to support a smaller “Families and Education” levy.The city can apply for federal money to pay
for the preschool program, instead of raising property taxes more.
8. The rules about how the money can be spent are not clear.The Mayor and City Council can decide any
time to cut programs or start new programs using the Levy money.

Who says vote NO:Seattle League of
Women Voters; Sue Peters (Former School Board President); Melissa Westbrook
(Education Activist);
Note:The current School Board President,
Leslie Harris, said that she is worried about Levy money going to Charter
Schools, but doesn’t think that is a big enough problem to vote no.